Gauhati High Court
Crl.Pet./696/2025 on 13 August, 2025
Author: Manish Choudhury
Bench: Manish Choudhury
Page No.# 1/15
GAHC010131872025
2025:GAU-AS:11031
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : Crl.Pet./696/2025
Sri Banajit Kalita, S/o Sri Modan Kalita, resident of
Village - Sonapur, P.S.-Mushalpur, District Baksa,
Assam, Pin - 781373.
..................Petitioner
-VERSUS-
1. The State of Assam, Represented by the Public
Prosecutor, Assam, Gauhati High Court.
2. Smti. Lanima Das, W/o Sri Manabendra Das,
Resident of Village - Ahopa, P.O. - Ahopa, P.S. -
Mushalpur, District - Baksa, Pin - 781373.
...................Respondents
Advocates :
Petitioner : Mr. M. Kalita, Advocate.
Respondent no. 1 : Mr. B. Sharma,
Additional Public Prosecutor.
Respondent no. 2 : Mr. A. Phukan, Advocate.
Date of Hearing, Judgment & Order : 13.08.2025
Page No.# 2/15
BEFORE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANISH CHOUDHURY
JUDGMENT & ORDER
1. Heard Mr. M. Kalita, learned counsel for the petitioner; Mr. B. Sharma,
learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent no. 1, State of Assam;
and Mr. A. Phukan, learned counsel for the respondent no. 2.
2. The criminal petition under Section 528, Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha
Sanhita [BNSS], 2023 is preferred seeking setting aside of the criminal
proceedings of Police Report Case [PRC] no. 422/2021, presently pending
before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Baksa Mushalpur [‘the Trial Court’,
for short]; and also, the First Information Report [FIR] dated 15.01.2021
registered as Mushalpur Police Station Case no. 05/2021 and the Charge-Sheet
no. 22/2021 submitted in connection with Mushalpur Police Station Case no.
05/2021 on 30.04.2021.
3. The respondent no. 2 herein as the informant lodged a FIR before the In-
Charge, Doomni Out Post, Police Station – Mushalpur, District – Baksa on
15.01.2021 naming two persons as accused with the present petitioner as
accused no. 1. In the FIR, it was inter alia alleged that at around 07-30 p.m. on
15.01.2021, the two accused persons criminally trespassed into the house of
the respondent no. 2-informant all of a sudden. At that time, the accused were
armed with iron rods and knives. At the time of the incident, the informant’s
husband was not present in the house. By trespassing into the house without
permission, the accused persons had allegedly vandalized the household items.
That apart, the accused persons pulled and dragged the informant and used
Page No.# 3/15
obscene language. The informant further alleged that the accused persons also
tried to drag her towards the forest located behind the house. The villagers
arrived at the scene at that time and seeing the villagers, the accused persons
fled from the scene.
4. On receipt of the FIR, Doomni Out Post General Diary Entry no. 44 dated
15.01.2021 was registered by the In-Charge, Doomni Out Post while forwarding
the FIR to the Officer In-Charge, Mushalpur Police Station to register a case.
Upon receipt of the FIR, the same was registered by the Officer In-Charge,
Mushalpur Police Station as Mushalpur Police Station Case no. 05/2021 under
Section 447/427/354/294/506, Indian Penal Code [IPC] on 16.01.2021 and an
investigation ensued.
5. On completion of the investigation, the I.O. submitted a charge-sheet
under Section 173[2], CrPC vide Charge-Sheet no. 22/2021 on 30.04.2021
finding sufficient incriminating materials only against the petitioner herein to
face the trial for committing the offences under Sections
447/427/323/354/294/34, IPC. The other accused person, Biswajit Kalita,
named in the FIR, was found to be a juvenile [CCL] and he was not charge-
sheeted.
6. On submission of the Charge-Sheet, the case has been registered as
Police Report Case [PRC] no. 422/2021 before the Trial Court. The Trial Court
taking cognizance, issued process to secure the appearance of the petitioner as
the accused. On receipt of summons, the petitioner appeared before the Trial
Court on 26.07.2022 and made a prayer to release him on bail. The prayer was
Page No.# 4/15
allowed on 26.07.2022. The parties were heard for framing of charge. Finding
prima facie materials against the accused-petitioner, charges under Sections
447/354/506/323/427, IPC were framed on 12.08.2022. When the charges was
read over and explained to the accused-petitioner, he pleaded not guilty and
claimed to be tried. As a result, the case proceeded for trial and for recording of
evidence on 01.10.2022.
7. During the course of the trial, the prosecution side examined seven nos. of
prosecution witnesses till 19.06.2025. On 19.06.2025, the Trial Court had
opined that all the prosecution witnesses had leveled allegattions against
Biswajit Kalita. Opining so, the Trial Court took cognizance against Biswajit
Kalita for the offences under Sections 447/354/506/343/427/34, IPC and adding
Biswajit Kalita as accused, issued summons against him.
8. Mr. Kalita, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that during the
period of investigation and trial, a process of mediation was going on between
the parties and it was at the intervention of the elders from both the villages
and well-wishers, the informant’s side and the petitioner’s side decided to bury
the hatchet in the greater interest of maintaining peace and tranquility in their
locality. As a result, all the disputes and discords have been amicably settled
and to that effect, the respondent no. 2-informant has voluntarily come forward
to execute and swear an affidavit on 09.06.2025. Mr. Kalita has referred to the
said affidavit, annexed as Annexure-3 to the instant petition, to support his
submission.
9. Mr. Phukan, learned counsel who has appeared for the respondent no. 2-
Page No.# 5/15
informant, has submitted that as the informant’s side and the petitioner’s side
are from nearby localities, the village elders had intervened in order to reach an
amicable settlement between the parties so that peace and tranquility in their
respective locality can be maintained. He has submitted that the respondent no.
2-informant and the petitioner have both amicably settled the issues by arriving
at a compromise. Mr. Phukan has submitted that the affidavit annexed as
Annexure-3 to the petition has been sworn by the respondent no. 2-informant.
10. The offences under Sections 447/427/323, IPC are compoundable as per
the provision of Section 320, CrPC. It is only offences under Section 354 and
Section 294 of the IPC which do not fall in the category of compoundable
offences.
11. It is settled that the inherent powers under Section 482, Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 [‘CrPC‘ or ‘the Code’, for short] is distinct and wider in
amplitude than the power available to the criminal courts under Section 320,
CrPC to the compound offences. The compoundable offences are mentioned in
Section 320, CrPC. The inherent powers under Section 482, CrPC have no
statutory limitation and the inherent powers can be invoked, in an appropriate
case, to secure the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of process even if there
is involvement of non-compoundable offence[s].
12. The provisions contained in Section 528, BNSS are pari materia to the
provisions of Section 482 CrPC. In other words, the powers under Section 528,
BNSS are akin to the powers under Section 482, CrPC.
Page No.# 6/15
13. With regard to the powers under Section 320 and Section 482 of the Code,
in Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab, reported in [2012] 10 SCC 303, the
Supreme Court has observed and held as under :-
61. The position that emerges from the above discussion can be summarised thus :
the power of the High Court in quashing a criminal proceeding or FIR or complaint in
exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is distinct and different from the power given to a
criminal court for compounding the offences under Section 320 of the Code. Inherent
power is of wide plenitude with no statutory limitation but it has to be exercised in
accord with the guideline engrafted in such power viz. : [i] to secure the ends of
justice, or [ii] to prevent abuse of the process of any court. In what cases power to
quash the criminal proceeding or complaint or FIR may be exercised where the
offender and the victim have settled their dispute would depend on the facts and
circumstances of each case and no category can be prescribed. However, before
exercise of such power, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and
gravity of the crime. Heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like
murder, rape, dacoity, etc. cannot be fittingly quashed even though the victim or
victim’s family and the offender have settled the dispute. Such offences are not private
in nature and have a serious impact on society. Similarly, any compromise between
the victim and the offender in relation to the offences under special statutes like the
Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while
working in that capacity, etc.; cannot provide for any basis for quashing criminal
proceedings involving such offences. But the criminal cases having overwhelmingly
and predominatingly civil flavour stand on a different footing for the purposes of
quashing, particularly the offences arising from commercial, financial, mercantile, civil,
partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony relating
to dowry, etc. or the family disputes where the wrong is basically private or personal in
nature and the parties have resolved their entire dispute. In this category of cases, the
High Court may quash the criminal proceedings if in its view, because of the
Page No.# 7/15compromise between the offender and the victim, the possibility of conviction is
remote and bleak and continuation of the criminal case would put the accused to
great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not
quashing the criminal case despite full and complete settlement and compromise with
the victim. In other words, the High Court must consider whether it would be unfair or
contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceeding or
continuation of the criminal proceeding would tantamount to abuse of process of law
despite settlement and compromise between the victim and the wrongdoer and
whether to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that the criminal case is put to
an end and if the answer to the above question[s] is in the affirmative, the High Court
shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding.
14. After considering the decision in Gian Singh [supra], the Supreme Court
in the case of Narinder Singh vs. State of Punjab , reported in [2014] 6
SCC 466, has observed in the similar manner and the relevant parts of the said
judgment are extracted hereunder :-
29. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we sum up and lay down the following
principles by which the High Court would be guided in giving adequate treatment to
the settlement between the parties and exercising its power under Section 482 of the
Code while accepting the settlement and quashing the proceedings or refusing to
accept the settlement with direction to continue with the criminal proceedings :
29.1. Power conferred under Section 482 of the Code is to be distinguished from the
power which lies in the Court to compound the offences under Section 320 of the
Code. No doubt, under Section 482 of the Code, the High Court has inherent power to
quash the criminal proceedings even in those cases which are not compoundable,
where the parties have settled the matter between themselves. However, this power is
to be exercised sparingly and with caution.
29.2. When the parties have reached the settlement and on that basis petition for
Page No.# 8/15quashing the criminal proceedings is filed, the guiding factor in such cases would be
to secure :
[i] ends of justice, or
[ii] to prevent abuse of the process of any court. While exercising the power the
High Court is to form an opinion on either of the aforesaid two objectives.
29.3. Such a power is not to be exercised in those prosecutions which involve heinous
and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc.
Such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society.
Similarly, for the offences alleged to have been committed under special statute like
the Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while
working in that capacity are not to be quashed merely on the basis of compromise
between the victim and the offender.
29.4. On the other hand, those criminal cases having overwhelmingly and
predominantly civil character, particularly those arising out of commercial transactions
or arising out of matrimonial relationship or family disputes should be quashed when
the parties have resolved their entire disputes among themselves.
29.5. While exercising its powers, the High Court is to examine as to whether the
possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of criminal cases would
put the accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be
caused to him by not quashing the criminal cases.
29.6. Offences under Section 307, IPC would fall in the category of heinous and
serious offences and therefore are to be generally treated as crime against the society
and not against the individual alone. However, the High Court would not rest its
decision merely because there is a mention of Section 307, IPC in the FIR or the
charge is framed under this provision. It would be open to the High Court to examine
as to whether incorporation of Section 307, IPC is there for the sake of it or the
prosecution has collected sufficient evidence, which if proved, would lead to proving
the charge under Section 307 IPC. For this purpose, it would be open to the High
Court to go by the nature of injury sustained, whether such injury is inflicted on the
vital/delegate parts of the body, nature of weapons used, etc. Medical report in
Page No.# 9/15
respect of injuries suffered by the victim can generally be the guiding factor. On the
basis of this prima facie analysis, the High Court can examine as to whether there is a
strong possibility of conviction or the chances of conviction are remote and bleak. In
the former case it can refuse to accept the settlement and quash the criminal
proceedings whereas in the latter case it would be permissible for the High Court to
accept the plea compounding the offence based on complete settlement between the
parties. At this stage, the Court can also be swayed by the fact that the settlement
between the parties is going to result in harmony between them which may improve
their future relationship.
29.7. While deciding whether to exercise its power under Section 482 of the Code or
not, timings of settlement play a crucial role. Those cases where the settlement is
arrived at immediately after the alleged commission of offence and the matter is still
under investigation, the High Court may be liberal in accepting the settlement to
quash the criminal proceedings/investigation. It is because of the reason that at this
stage the investigation is still on and even the charge-sheet has not been filed.
Likewise, those cases where the charge is framed but the evidence is yet to start or
the evidence is still at infancy stage, the High Court can show benevolence in
exercising its powers favourably, but after prima facie assessment of the
circumstances/material mentioned above. On the other hand, where the prosecution
evidence is almost complete or after the conclusion of the evidence the matter is at
the stage of argument, normally the High Court should refrain from exercising its
power under Section 482 of the Code, as in such cases the trial court would be in a
position to decide the case finally on merits and to come to a conclusion as to whether
the offence under Section 307 IPC is committed or not. Similarly, in those cases
where the conviction is already recorded by the trial court and the matter is at the
appellate stage before the High Court, mere compromise between the parties would
not be a ground to accept the same resulting in acquittal of the offender who has
already been convicted by the trial court. Here charge is proved under Section 307
IPC and conviction is already recorded of a heinous crime and, therefore, there is no
question of sparing a convict found guilty of such a crime.
Page No.# 10/15
15. In Parbatbhai vs. State of Gujarat, [2017] 9 SCC 641, the Hon’ble
Supreme Court has observed as under :-
16.1. Section 482 CrPC preserves the inherent powers of the High Court to
prevent an abuse of the process of any court or to secure the ends of justice. The
provision does not confer new powers. It only recognises and preserves powers
which inhere in the High Court.
16.2. The invocation of the jurisdiction of the High Court to quash a first
information report or a criminal proceeding on the ground that a settlement has been
arrived at between the offender and the victim is not the same as the invocation of
jurisdiction for the purpose of compounding an offence. While compounding an
offence, the power of the court is governed by the provisions of Section 320 CrPC.
The power to quash under Section 482 is attracted even if the offence is non-
compoundable.
16.3. In forming an opinion whether a criminal proceeding or complaint should be
quashed in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482, the High Court must
evaluate whether the ends of justice would justify the exercise of the inherent power.
16.4. While the inherent power of the High Court has a wide ambit and plenitude it
has to be exercised (i) to secure the ends of justice, or (ii) to prevent an abuse of the
process of any court.
16.5. The decision as to whether a complaint or first information report should be
quashed on the ground that the offender and victim have settled the dispute,
revolves ultimately on the facts and circumstances of each case and no exhaustive
elaboration of principles can be formulated.
16.6. In the exercise of the power under Section 482 and while dealing with a plea
that the dispute has been settled, the High Court must have due regard to the nature
and gravity of the offence. Heinous and serious offences involving mental depravity
or offences such as murder, rape and dacoity cannot appropriately be quashed
Page No.# 11/15
though the victim or the family of the victim have settled the dispute. Such offences
are, truly speaking, not private in nature but have a serious impact upon society. The
decision to continue with the trial in such cases is founded on the overriding element
of public interest in punishing persons for serious offences.
16.7. As distinguished from serious offences, there may be criminal cases which
have an overwhelming or predominant element of a civil dispute. They stand on a
distinct footing insofar as the exercise of the inherent power to quash is concerned.
16.8. Criminal cases involving offences which arise from commercial, financial,
mercantile, partnership or similar transactions with an essentially civil flavour may in
appropriate situations fall for quashing where parties have settled the dispute.
16.9. In such a case, the High Court may quash the criminal proceeding if in view
of the compromise between the disputants, the possibility of a conviction is remote
and the continuation of a criminal proceeding would cause oppression and prejudice;
and
16.10. There is yet an exception to the principle set out in propositions 16.8 and
16.9 above. Economic offences involving the financial and economic well-being of
the State have implications which lie beyond the domain of a mere dispute between
private disputants. The High Court would be justified in declining to quash where the
offender is involved in an activity akin to a financial or economic fraud or
misdemeanour. The consequences of the act complained of upon the financial or
economic system will weigh in the balance.
16. In the case of State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Laxmi Narayan,
reported in [2019] 5 SCC 688, the Supreme Court has further observed as
under :-
15. Considering the law on the point and the other decisions of this Court on the
point, referred to hereinabove, it is observed and held as under :
15.1. That the power conferred under Section 482 of the Code to quash the criminal
Page No.# 12/15proceedings for the non-compoundable offences under Section 320 of the Code can
be exercised having overwhelmingly and predominantly the civil character,
particularly those arising out of commercial transactions or arising out of matrimonial
relationship or family disputes and when the parties have resolved the entire dispute
amongst themselves;
15.2. Such power is not to be exercised in those prosecutions which involved
heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape,
dacoity, etc. Such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on
society;
15.3. Similarly, such power is not to be exercised for the offences under the special
statutes like Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public
servants while working in that capacity are not to be quashed merely on the basis of
compromise between the victim and the offender;
15.4. Offences under Section 307 IPC and the Arms Act etc. would fall in the
category of heinous and serious offences and therefore are to be treated as crime
against the society and not against the individual alone, and therefore, the criminal
proceedings for the offence under Section 307 IPC and/or the Arms Act etc. which
have a serious impact on the society cannot be quashed in exercise of powers under
Section 482 of the Code, on the ground that the parties have resolved their entire
dispute amongst themselves. However, the High Court would not rest its decision
merely because there is a mention of Section 307 IPC in the FIR or the charge is
framed under this provision. It would be open to the High Court to examine as to
whether incorporation of Section 307 IPC is there for the sake of it or the prosecution
has collected sufficient evidence, which if proved, would lead to framing the charge
under Section 307 IPC. For this purpose, it would be open to the High Court to go by
the nature of injury sustained, whether such injury is inflicted on the vital/delegate
parts of the body, nature of weapons used etc. However, such an exercise by the
High Court would be permissible only after the evidence is collected after
investigation and the charge sheet is filed/charge is framed and/or during the trial.
Such exercise is not permissible when the matter is still under investigation.
Page No.# 13/15
Therefore, the ultimate conclusion in paragraphs 29.6 and 29.7 of the decision of
this Court in the case of Narinder Singh [supra] should be read harmoniously and to
be read as a whole and in the circumstances stated hereinabove;
15.5. While exercising the power under Section 482 of the Code to quash the
criminal proceedings in respect of non-compoundable offences, which are private in
nature and do not have a serious impact on society, on the ground that there is a
settlement/compromise between the victim and the offender, the High Court is
required to consider the antecedents of the accused; the conduct of the accused,
namely, whether the accused was absconding and why he was absconding, how he
had managed with the complainant to enter into a compromise etc.
16. Insofar as the present case is concerned, the High Court has quashed the
criminal proceedings for the offences under Sections 307 and 34 IPC mechanically
and even when the investigation was under progress. Somehow, the accused
managed to enter into a compromise with the complainant and sought quashing of
the FIR on the basis of a settlement. The allegations are serious in nature. He used
the fire arm also in commission of the offence. Therefore, the gravity of the offence
and the conduct of the accused is not at all considered by the High Court and solely
on the basis of a settlement between the accused and the complainant, the High
Court has mechanically quashed the FIR, in exercise of power under Section 482 of
the Code, which is not sustainable in the eyes of law. The High Court has also failed
to note the antecedents of the accused.
17. Having regard to the materials brought on record including the affidavit
sworn by the respondent no. 2-informant and hearing the learned counsel for
both the sides, it is evident that the respondent no. 2-informant’s side and the
petitioner’s side have already arrived at an amicable settlement with regard to
the disputes and discords existing between the parties. The charges have
already been framed against the petitioner in the proceedings of PRC No.
422/2021. Lately, cognizance has been against the other accused person, who
Page No.# 14/15
incidentally was not earlier charge-sheeted. With summons having been issued
recently against the newly added accused to secure his appearance in the
proceedings of PRC no. 427/2021, an early conclusion of the proceedings is not
in sight.
18. It is the testimony of the respondent no. 2-informant which is vital to
bring home the charges under Section 354, IPC and Section 294, IPC. From the
version in the FIR, it transpires at the time of the incident, she was the only
person who was present inside the house. If such situation is taken into
consideration, there is lesser possibility of the case resulting in conviction
against the petitioner and the newly added accused for the offences under
Section 354, IPC and Section 294, IPC. The sequence of events, on a plain
reading of the testimony of the witnesses, is indicative of a situation that the
incident stated to have occurred, was subsequent to another incident of
slapping and assault on an uncle of the accused persons by the husband of the
informant.
19. As the two sides have buried their hatchet, at the intervention of the
village elders of the localities, by arriving at an amicable settlement, this Court
is of the considered view that the criminal proceeding in connection with PRC
No. 422/2021 is to be given a quietus. This Court cannot remain ignorant of the
fact that the elders of the two localities had come forward to make the
contesting parties meet and arrive at a mutual settlement so that a situation of
peace is restored in the localities. The quashing of the criminal proceedings is
going to advance peace and harmony amongst the parties who have decided to
forget and bury the disputes and discord. The quashing of the criminal
Page No.# 15/15
proceeding is going to have better social impact, rather than its denial.
Therefore, in such exercise of inherent powers under Section 528, BNSS, the
criminal proceedings of PRC No. 422/2021, presently pending before the Court
of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Baksa at Mushalpur, is set aside and quashed.
Consequently, the FIR lodged in connection with Mushalpur Police Station Case
no. 05/2021 and the Charge-Sheet no. 22/2021 submitted in connection with
Mushalpur Police Station Case no. 05/2021 are also quashed.
20. The criminal petition is disposed of in the afore-stated terms. No cost.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant